RUKHMABAI GANPATRAO PARKHI Vs. SHAMLAL SURAJMAL MARWADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been placed before the Full Bench for examining the correctness of the view taken in Dau Balwantsingh v. Bindabai A.I.R. 1942 Nag. 88 that a preliminary decree in a suit on a mortgage for conditional sale was not a decree passed for payment of money on mortgage within the meaning of that expression used in Section 17, Relief of Indebtedness Act (No. 14 of 1939) and that there being no debt within the meaning of Section 2(d) of that Act, the Debt Relief Court had no " jurisdiction to entertain the debtor's application for settlement of the debt or to order stay of the proceedings in the civil Court for making the decree final.

(2.) THE facts of this case are simple and may be briefly stated. On 1st October 1936 a preliminary decree for foreclosure was passed and on 5th April 1937 the mortgagee applied for making the decree final. The debtor applied to the Debt Relief Court but his application was dismissed on the ground that the debt exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs. 25,000. The debtor, on application to this Court in revision, succeeded in getting that order set aside by this Court's order dated 11th July 1942 which also directed the stay of the proceedings in the civil Court till the disposal of the debtor's application by the Debt Relief Court. On 24th November 1942 the lower Court received notice from Debt Relief Court under Section 6(3), Relief of Indebtedness Act, directing stay of the proceedings for making the decree final. The lower Court, following Dau Balwantsingh v. Bindabai A.I.R. 1942 Nag. 88, declined to stay the proceedings before it on the ground that the Debt Relief Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application in respect of the preliminary decree for foreclosure.

(3.) THE question as to the jurisdiction of the Debt Relief Court is but ancillary to this question.